With Supreme Court ruling still pending, judge extends block on Guard in Chicago indefinitely

[Thiệu Ngô]

CHICAGO (AP) — President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in Democratic-led cities over objections of mayors and governors have brought a head-spinning array of court challenges and overlapping rulings.

By CHRISTINE FERNANDO and GENE JOHNSON

As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders whether to clear the way for the National Guard in Chicago, a federal appeals court is hearing arguments in California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s challenge to troop deployment in Los Angeles. Guard troops could also soon be on the ground in Portland, Oregon, pending legal developments there.

Here’s what to know about legal efforts to block or deploy the National Guard in various cities.

Judge weighs Guard in Chicago while awaiting Supreme Court ruling

U.S. District Judge April Perry on Wednesday blocked the deployment of Guard troops to the Chicago area indefinitely, until the case has been decided in her court or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. Perry had already blocked the deployment for two weeks.

Attorneys representing the federal government said they would agree to extend the temporary restraining order but emphasized that they would continue pressing for an emergency order from the Supreme Court that would allow for the deployment of Guard troops.

“Every day this improper TRO remains in effect imposes grievous and irreparable harm on the Executive,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a Supreme Court filing Tuesday.

Lawyers representing Chicago and Illinois have asked the Supreme Court to continue to block the deployment, calling it a “dramatic step.”

Guard deployment in Portland also in limbo

An appeals court said Monday that Trump could take command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops, but a separate court order still blocks him from actually deploying them.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders earlier this month. One prohibited Trump from calling up Oregon troops so he could send them to Portland. The other prohibited him from sending any Guard members to Oregon at all after he tried to evade the first order by deploying California troops instead.

The Justice Department appealed the first order, and in a 2-1 ruling Monday, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the administration.

However, Immergut’s second order remains in effect, so no troops may immediately be deployed. She has scheduled a hearing for Friday on the administration’s request to dissolve that order. Meanwhile, the state is asking the 9th Circuit to reconsider Monday’s ruling.
California legal battle goes before appellate panel

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Pasadena heard arguments Wednesday related to Trump’s deployment of Guard troops to Los Angeles.

A district court found the administration violated federal law when it sent troops to Los Angeles in June after protests over Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Judge Charles Breyer handed Newsom a victory on June 13 when he ordered control of California’s Guard members back to the state. But in an emergency ruling, an appeals court panel sided with the Trump administration, putting Breyer’s decision on hold and allowing the troops to remain in federal hands as the lawsuit unfolds.

The appeals court is now weighing whether to vacate Breyer’s June order.

The same three-judge panel is also handling the Trump administration’s appeal of Breyer’s Sept. 2 ruling, which found the president violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting military enforcement of domestic laws.

Groups aim to stop Guard deployment in DC

In Charleston, West Virginia, a state court hearing is set for Friday in a lawsuit filed by two groups seeking to block deployment of the state National Guard to Washington, D.C. More than 300 Guard members have been in the nation’s capital supporting Trump’s initiative since late August.

A separate federal court hearing centers on a request by District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Scwalb for a temporary injunction to stop the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen.

Forty-five states have entered filings in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions in D.C. and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.

Republican governors from several states also sent units to D.C. Although the emergency period ended in September, more than 2,200 troops remain. Several states told The Associated Press they would bring their units home by Nov. 30, unless extended.
Democrats sue to stop Guard deployment in Memphis

In Tennessee, Democratic elected officials sued last Friday to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis. They said Republican Gov. Bill Lee, acting on a request from Trump, violated the state constitution, which says the Guard can be called up during “rebellion or invasion” — but only with state lawmakers’ blessing.

Since their arrival on Oct. 10, troops have been patrolling downtown Memphis, including near the iconic Pyramid, wearing fatigues and protective vests that say “military police,” with guns in holsters. Guard members have no arrest power, officials have said.